Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Jarnail Chand alias Jaila son of Batna Ram challenging the judgment dated July 4, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby his appeal against the judgment dated February 22, 1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to him under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, `the Code) were maintained. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. As per the prosecution, on June 19, 1986 at about 8.00 p.m. Harbhajan Singh alongwith his brother Mohinder Singh and another person Balkar Singh were present at the cycle shop of his father Chanan Singh which was situated at the Bus Adda of village Bawal Pindi. The aforesaid Chanan Singh went to bring water from the tap of Lakhi Tent House and when he was returning to his own shop alongwith water at that time a Fiat car bearing No. CH-2253, which is stated to be driven rashly and negligently struck against him and dragged him 5/6 krams. Subsequently, the aforesaid car got punctured and stopped. Harbhajan Singh complainant alongwith others took Chanan Singh to the Civil Hospital, Phagwara but Chanan Singh died on the way. A formal FIR was registered. After investigation, the challan was presented. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Ms. Ashima Mohindroo, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was not proved that the aforesaid car was being driven rashly or negligently. As per the learned counsel, it is proved on the record that the aforesaid car got punctured and it was because of the aforesaid defect that the unfortunate accident had taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that in these circumstances, the accident be taken as an act of God and beyond the control of the driver and, therefore, no rashness and negligence could be attributed to him. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prem Kumar, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the prosecution version was duly proved on the record and, therefore, no interference was required to be made in the present revision petition. 5. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prem Kumar, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the prosecution version was duly proved on the record and, therefore, no interference was required to be made in the present revision petition. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the present revision petition deserves to succeed. 6. As per the evidence on record produced by the prosecution itself the car was found to be punctured. This fact was even noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para No. 7 of his judgment. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge brushed aside this fact by merely observing that the car might have been punctured after the accident. In my opinion, there is no warrant for the aforesaid observations. It was for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the aforesaid car was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver i.e. the present petitioner, and that it was because of the rashness and negligence of the petitioner that such an accident had taken place. However, no such evidence is forthcoming on the record. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the revision petition is allowed and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges against him. Revision allowed.